I've never understood why people who are mono-theists think their god has a gender at all. I mean, if there's only one of it, why would it be either male or female, it's not like it has anything to mate with...
and apparently there's a lot of trick photography involved in those movies. First of all, the blade is just plastic segments, and you kind of flick it to get the blade to extend. By the way, it doesn't cut worth a damn. It seems that the "light" part of the lightsaber is just a flashlight bulb embedded in the handle and shining through the tube. Pretty disappointing really. Now the sound effects on the other hand are pretty damn cool. Granted, they're a little tinny compared to the movies, but I figure that's just due to the way they mixed the audio in post-prod.
Just this then - if the Universe does have a definite purpose (and therefore a creator), how would you tell?
If you can't tell, why would it matter? If it is truly impossible to know, how would that be different than not having a creator? You may as well worry that there is a creator and that he's going to cancel physics any minute now. What could you do about it anyway?
Can you ever know the purpose of anything or even if something has a purpose, without some prior knowledge?
I'd say it's the same answer as the first question. If it's truely impossible to know, then it becomes irrelevant.
If not, then perhaps the notion of purpose itself is a human construct and therefore the ultimate question is itself fairly meaningless.
Well, at the very least it's a function of sentience, so if we're all there is, yep, it's a human construct. As for the meaningfulness of the question, I dunno. I posted a reply figuring maybe I'd get an answer to a question. What I got was a game of pile-on, where almost everyone wanted to have a go at me, even though most of them seem to have come up with a ton of points that I never mentioned, or are the direct opposite of what I said. Apparently it's meaningful to someone, oddly just not all that much to me personally.
You seem hellbent on making the point that science implies that the universe does not have a purpose. I disagree.
Congratulations.
Science makes no investigation into purpose of the type you mention.
And why is that? Is it because there's absolutely no evidence that it exists? Science doesn't make any investigation into it for the same reason science doesn't research the mating rituals of pink unicorns, because there's no evidence of their existence either.
I would say that it does not concern itself with such ethereal matters merely practical, physical considerations.
So if there was reason to believe that the universe does in fact have a purpose, in your opinion scientists would pass on investigating it? That's ludicrous. I'm sure there are scientists who would be more than happy to do research on who built the universe, if evidence were to present itself that such an entity exists.
Science works just as well whether there is a purpose or not.
Exactly, so why assume that there actually is one absent any evidence of that?
Any purpose, if it exists, is outside the realm of science as it cannot be tested.
Not only can it not be tested, it can't even be found to exist. Under those conditions, it's entirely possible that stepping on a sidewalk crack really does cause your mother to break her back, after all, you can't actually prove it doesn't can you? The idea that there is an inherent and intentional purpose to the universe is completely unsubstantiated.
So how can it imply anything about it ? You are imposing that implication, science isn't. Science is a technique, not a belief, nor a discrete entity.
Science has never outright proven that humans never had psychic abilities that allowed them to fly, but the evidence to date certainly implies that this ability never existed. By your own argument though, perhaps we shouldn't make this assumption. As for the rest of what you said here, results can absolutely imply things not clearly present in data. For example, we detect extra-solar planets by observing stars and measuring how they're affected by gravitational fields. We can't actually see these planets, we're fairly certain of their existence though because their existence is implied by those readings. Or are astronomers misusing science by treating it as a "belief" or "discrete entity"?
Take this for an example of what I mean. An engineer designs and builds an engine. What does that engine imply about the purpose of the universe ?
Absolutely nothing. Why would it?
I would say that it does not concern itself with such ethereal matters merely practical, physical considerations.
Assuming you even believe these "etheral matters" exist. Perhaps you missed the 30 or so times so far where I said you need something like a religion or similar type of philosophy to come up with purpose. "etheral matters" sounds like it would fit that bill. Of course, since there's no evidence that this whatever-it-is actually exists, it's not particularly unreasonable to not believe in it.
A scientist can look at an engine and work out how it was done. Working out why it was built has nothing to do with science, apart from what position in the hierarchy of other physical things it occupies.
Cool, now all you have to do to make this analogy rock-solid is provide some kind of proof that the universe was "built" rather than simply being the result of some natural process with no guiding consciousness involved. I'm not going to wait for a reply that manages this though, since from the dawn of humanity nobody's managed it.
Why, exactly? What is doing this implying? Why can only created things have meaning?
I've explained this over and over. The question I'd like an answer to is how can something that isn't intentionally created have inherent purpose and meaning. Those are functions of intent. If there's no entity creating an object for a particular purpose, I can't see a way for them to have them, so why don't you explain why you think they can? And once again, there is a difference between inherent purpose (a hammer was created for the purpose of hitting nails) and a purpose assigned after the fact by someone not involved with it's creation (the Universe serves the purpose of providing us with a place to exist so we can post on Slashdot). I've asked that question a couple of times now to people who seem to think it's possible, but so far nobody's tried to answer it. Looking through your posts, you tend to mention Buddhism from time to time. Assuming that you're a Buddhist, and that you are taking your ideas of meaning and purpose from Buddhism, you have a value for n in my little pseudocode example above. In this case, n = Buddhism, and plugging that in allows you to complete the equation and get a purpose. Great, if that works for you I'm pleased to hear it. But as I told someone else, we don't all see the need for a complementary school of thought to accompany science, and the universe seems to work just fine without one. If you're looking for purpose and meaning, by all means use a religion or philosophy that provides one for you, but for those of us who prefer evidence to base our view of reality on, for whom science is the only option that makes sense, the idea that the universe has a special purpose as opposed to simply existing simply doesn't work.
So is the universe more like a rock or more like a hammer?
The universe is the rock. We have no particular reason to believe that the universe was actually built by anyone, or at least no evidence of it. You mention in your other post about being a Simulationist. It's an interesting idea, but in some ways it's not particularly useful, as the sim may be programmed in a way that actively prevents us from recognizing it for what it is. I would lean towards the idea then that it becomes a moot point - if it's built in such a way that we can never discover that it was built in the first place, we're left in the position that we're already in, that we have to take it for what it is.
If you had never seen a hammer before, would you be able to say definitively whether it was a thing with a purpose and therefore different from a purposeless rock, or not?
I'd say that's outside the point of the analogy. The point of using a hammer in the analogy is that it's definitely manufactured, and that there's no reason to believe that a random rock in the forest has been purposely built to be what it is. If you want the analogy to cover a manufactured universe, you'd have to use something of more ambiguous origin than a hammer, like maybe a flint-chip. That could be naturally formed, or it could be an arrow-head. I'm not even going to try to claim that the hammer vs. rock analogy can cover any conceivable argument, what analogy could?
You said that science implies that there is no purpose, which is what I was disagreeing with.
Which is fine, but what you said was "Science doesn't imply the non-existence of God".
This is the philosopher's criticism of science - that you'll ultimately just end up with turtles all the way down [wikipedia.org]. However, religion is no better in that respect and is in fact worse since the religious only consider the first turtle!
Sure there's that problem. Of course, the difference is, in science you can at some point say "I don't know", whereas in religion you can end up with either an answer that's just made up, or the answer of "We're not meant to know".
If it interests you at all I'm a simulationist myself (and therefore to some extent ignostic), although I should stress that I don't think that implies either an afterlife or any particular meaning. But there's no science in that, only an idle guessing game.
It does interest me, and it also provides an answer. To you, (if I'm understanding the meaning of simulationist), we're living in a sim, which very probably was created for a reason. In that case, the universe does have a purpose (although we aren't aware of the exact nature of it). To go back to the pseudo-code thing that I've been getting battered over, you'd get this: n = "test simulation" The Universe + n = Purpose Or, something created a universe, for the purpose of, for the sake of argument let's say figuring out if life can be supported in a universe with our particular laws of physics. That's perfectly valid for you to believe, doesn't bother me any, but there's no evidence to support it. So then we're back to me. I don't think it's likely that anything purposely created the universe, and therefore I have no value to plug into n. Based solely on science, I'm left with the idea that the only purpose there is in anything is what we give it ourselves. It doesn't have one otherwise (no inherent purpose). That is why I say science implies that the Universe and Humanity does not have a purpose, you need another set of beliefs to add that, and we don't all share that this additional set of beliefs is necessary.
Science doesn't imply the non-existence of God. It might imply the non-existence of God as you think of it, but then many people believe in a God who is actually very similar to Santa Claus.
No, and I didn't say that it does, although that can follow easily enough. The existence of a god does not necessarily mean that the universe or humanity has a purpose either. Maybe this god just likes cosmic radiation and we're a useless side effect. To come up with a "god" you have to make certain unnecessary assumptions, unnecessary because you can get the right answer without resorting to an outside influence. You don't need a god to explain gravity, or chemestry, or any other science. Once again, IF you don't subscribe to a religion (or similar school of thought), AND you accept what science has to offer, THEN there is no reason to believe that the universe or humanity serves a special purpose, any more than you believe that the rock sitting in the middle of a forest serves a special purpose.
Whether there is any overarching purpose for existence as you put it, is a question of philosophy. Science can't even begin to touch it, as GnomeChompsky (dreadful uname BTW) was saying. It's not the scientist's fault if you end up feeling that way.
I think you're mixing two different types of purpose here. I'm talking about a purpose inherent in an object. A hammer was created to pound nails. This is why it was created. A person may feel their purpose in life is to help the poor, but that is a self-assigned purpose. There is no proof of an outside agent that caused that person's existence with the intention of helping the poor. As for it being a "scientist's fault" that I feel this way, I'm unsure why I would blame anyone for it. It's not a scientists fault that gravity causes me to hit the ground if I fall. Why would it be a scientist's fault if I don't think that the Universe or Humanity serves some special purpose, based on the fact that we have no good evidence that the universe was actually designed as opposed to it simply occuring?
Again, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M GETTING AT. This is getting frustrating beyond belief. What I said, once again, is that unless you have some other belief to go along with science, there is no particular purpose that we know of to the existence of the universe, or humanity in general. Take cosmology. If you don't have any sort of "complementary" belief, such as but not restricted to (bolded part for all the Slashlawyers who are picking things apart word by word) a religion of some type, a belief in extra-dimensional aliens that built the damn thing or a gut-feeling that only you can explain, then you can not say that the universe has an intended purpose. No, science does not seek to prove there is no god, but in the same way that we know that the sun is not pulled across the sky by Helios, we're coming to understand that the universe was not built just for us and quite probably was not created intentionally at all.
And to suggest that science can say something about the meaning of the universe is to misunderstand what science is in the first place.
For science to say anything about what the universe "means" to us is to misunderstand science completely. For something to have meaning of it's own, to have an inherent purpose, implies that it was created with that purpose in mind. If you disagree with that, fine, but I'd love to know how you get a purpose without it. I say that there is no creator, therefore there is no inherent purpose. I can come to that conclusion because I don't belong to a religion or philosophical school of thought that can provide that extra step of naming a purpose for the universe or humanity. Science alone gives no evidence for a purpose, and that's just fine with me. A rock doesn't need a special purpose to be a rock, a shark doesn't need a special purpose to be a shark, and I don't need a special purpose to be human because that's what I am regardless of philosophical or religious commentary.
Fine, what definition of purpose would you like to use then, and without an outside agent, some kind of creator, how can an object inherently have one?
The fact that science chugs along without any need for an external agency to work is enough for me that I don't have to create one or borrow one from someone else. We don't need a god or similar agency to explain anything in science. If you believe in one of these external agents, it's entirely your choice, as opposed to "believing" in gravity, which is not really optional.
So while the 'scientist with a petri dish' or 'great big simulation' versions of an external, purposeful creator might appeal to many scientists
A lot of things are appealing, but I fail to see how that alone makes them relevant. I find the idea of winning the MegaMillions lotto appealing, but I'm not planning on basing my investment strategy on it.
it lies beyond science to discuss it, since it can never be tested.
Oh, so if we were going to take a little pseudo-code like line here, it might look something like this: n = "external, purposeful creator's plan" Cosmology + n = Purpose Huh, if only I'd posted something like that earlier.
Does a computer need a higher purpose to function ?
No, and neither does the universe, or humanity. Function does not depend on having a purpose, and I can't figure out how you got the idea from my post that I think it does. I responded to a post that said "The world is full of people who somehow read the message "the universe serves no purpose" into cosmology and "people have no purpose" into evolutionary biology" by suggesting that science implies that there is no particular PURPOSE to existence, other than what we assign to it ourselves. That's it, that's all. In my pseudocode equation I said that without something filling the space of n, you can't get a purpose, I did not say that n is necessary for existence, just that it is necessary for purpose. Therefore, since there's no proof that anything actually fits the bill to be n's value, that it's not at all difficult to believe that there is no particular purpose to anything, other than that which we assign ourselves.
Reminds me of Vroomfondel and Magickthize. "We'll go on strike ! Is that what you want, a philosophers strike ?" Deep Thought : "And whom will that inconvenience?"
And this whole thread is beginning to remind me of "A Fish Called Wanda" Otto: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
I didn't actually say that science says we have no purpose. I said that it implies it, and that's what I believe. As far as it being a narrow definition of purpose, give me your definition. If you're thinking about it differently, then we're having two entirely different conversations.
The comment I replied to is "The world is full of people who somehow read the message "the universe serves no purpose" into cosmology and "people have no purpose" into evolutionary biology". I'm suggesting that it's not so hard to come away from the sciences with the idea that there is no grand overarching purpose for our existence. There's no actual evidence for any specific purpose to existence. It's not at all unreasonable to conclude that we're just here, and that's all there is to it.
A hammer is a collection of electrons, neutrons and protons.
That's not a suitable analogy at all. A hammer has an intended purpose, which is assigned by, as I mentioned above, a "creating, intelligent entity". That purpose is to pound nails. What the hammer is made of is irrelevant. Now a rock on the other hand might be a better analogy. The rock has no specific purpose, no entity formed it for a particular reason, it just is. You can use it to pound nails, but at that point you're assigning a purpose to it. In much the same way, the Universe has no particular purpose, it just is. Living in it is the purpose that we assign to it, but if life didn't form here, or ceased to exist here, the universe would exist anyway.
So you've completely lost me with equations like "Cosmology + n = Purpose".
I don't think it's that hard to follow. Cosmology alone does not assign any "purpose" to the universe. It simply is, and cosmology studies it's features.. There's no evidence that it exists for a specific reason. Example: A religion may say the universe exists so that we can inhabit it, so that we can praise it's creator. Following that, the universe has a purpose, to sustain this particular god's people. So, if you take cosmology (the universe exists and here are it's features), add religion (the n in my little pseudocode thingie) you get it's purpose (sustaining $DEITY's creations). If you don't ascribe to something vaguely like this, then the universe doesn't really serve an intended purpose. It's just here, and we get to live in it.
I also have no idea what you mean by "Cosmology and evolutionary biology don't need any such entity".
I mean exactly what I said. Biology and cosmology don't require a god or other outside force to work. As a matter of fact, I'd say that the more we learn in each field makes most religions less likely, not more. So, no, it's not a metaphor.
Now I admit that there was a time when meaning and science were bound up. For example Aristotle talked of final purposes and derived physics from such things. But those days have long gone.
I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. Science at this point suggests that there is no grand purpose to much of anything. You can make up a religion to try to instill a purpose into things if it makes you feel better, but objectively speaking there is no "purpose", no reason, no special meaning to existence. It's just an interesting collection of phenomena that we happen to be experiencing.
The world is full of people who somehow read the message "the universe serves no purpose" into cosmology and "people have no purpose" into evolutionary biology
But if you don't believe in some form of "god", isn't that message implied? The "purpose" spoken of in the context of religion is determined by an outside, or creating, intelligent entity. Cosmology and evolutionary biology don't need any such entity, so any "purpose" would be entirely of our own creation, meaning, there's no pre-determined purpose to the universe or humanity (that we know of), there's only the purpose that we decide to apply ourselves. My point is, if you think of this as a kind of pseudocode equation, with "purpose" as the product, then it'd look something like this: Cosmology + n = Purpose or Humanity + n = Purpose Now, maybe n is some type of god, or a sentient universe or something else, but without it, you don't get a value for Purpose. So far, science can't provide a value for n, and I haven't heard any likely candidates that I'd be willing to get behind.
I wanted to come up with an insightful reply that might sway you to my way of thinking, but you know, if you lack the basic humanity to know the difference between someone not wanting to die from lack of medical care and someone wanting a nice car or a McMansion, I don't think I can even begin to sway your opinion.
1: It's just going on too damn long. You have your view, I have mine, and they're not going to change.
2: I'm arguing specifically about same-sex marriage in the U.S., and using historical and cultural contexts that you may not see parallels to since you are not an American. Issues like mixed-race marriage are directly applicable because nearly all the arguments being used here are variations of those used many years ago when fighting against mixed-race marriage.
3: Your comments about the legal and political status of same sex marriage show that you don't really understand the relationship between the federal government, the governments of the states, and the citizens. This isn't a dig at you, why should you understand it? Most Americans don't have much of a grasp of political systems in Europe. My point here is that I'm at a loss as to how I can tie all these things together to make a decent response.
4: The Rammstein link was just stupid. If same sex marriage becomes the law of the land in the U.S., it will probably be after large portions of Europe already have it considering that the U.S. is generally more conservative socially, not less. Really, how many times have we heard on Slashdot alone that the American left looks like a moderate right-wing to most European eyes.
I thought it is apparent from the context of my posts, they should not be allowed to adopt right now without valid research. I'm not saying I'd ban such adoptions forever and banning even talking about it. Just until the research is made - of course, if the research comes with a objective conclusion that says it's okay for the children.
Why homosexuals though? Do we need to research interracial couples before we allow them to adopt? How about interfaith couples? Midgets? Mimes? You're specifically worried about one group, and honestly, it really does say far more about you than it does the actual issue. There is no good reason to require this "research". The most likely difficulties that a child would encounter are socially induced, and quite frankly, disallowing adoption for that reason opens the argument to disallowing adoption to mixed-race couples in, for instance, in some parts of the American south.
I thought it is apparent from the context of my posts, they should not be allowed to adopt right now without valid research. I'm not saying I'd ban such adoptions forever and banning even talking about it. Just until the research is made - of course, if the research comes with a objective conclusion that says it's okay for the children.
Not the point. You said you weren't treating the two groups differently, and I pointed out that you absolutely are. Perhaps this is a language issue (now that I know English isn't your first), but the fact remains that you're treating them differently, which is discrimination, plain and simple.
Result related? There isn't. But I don't think it is okay for people to try to inject some sort of guilt-play. Sure, I understand the topic is quite emotional for a lot of people but I don't think it will help here at all.
No. Currently gay marriage is not legal in the vast majority of the United States. Emotion doesn't play into this part of it. The law doesn't allow you to do it, and therefore proponents want it legalized. Further, in certain places here the law has been changed to define marriage as one man and one woman, for the express reason of excluding homosexuals.
I have explained it before, "marriage" is a term that covers a bit wider "territory" here, but if gay activists would agree to shrink some of that "territory" and called the resulting contract "buki-buki" I would vote for it in my country. In a blink of an eye. Because I really believe gay couples that have committed themselves to each other should have some legal safeties.
Discrimination is unacceptable. Separate but equal is unacceptable. Perhaps in your country the context is different, but in the United States rights belong to the people, not the State unless otherwise specified. There is no over-riding state interest in blocking homosexuals from marrying, therefore it should not be involved.
Fair enough. In that case, I would have to argue that they are getting a bad representation by their activists.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The folks from the childfree "movement" are getting exactly what they want, they don't want children and they don't want to be bothered by those who do. Seems pretty clear to me.
I really don't think these things are equivalent. Marriage is not a club, a league nor even a side of a bus.
Really? I'll let you pass on the baseball part, but I see you skipped over the topic of inter-racial marriage. Did marriage change when these people were allowed to marry? If not, why do you feel there's a major difference here?
I would rather not get into motives for that, but I have never heard "these children need adopting to grow in happy homes and be valuable members of our society". However, I have heard phrases l
I think you are reading what you wish to read. Let me help you: "it may be".
Well now this is convenient to your point, since in fields such as psychology and sociology "it may be" is pretty much as good as it gets. No researcher in their right mind is going to try to apply a concrete finding in studies of human behaviour since there's really no way to prove anything without room for error. Case in point, you won't find any reliable research that says "Children of heterosexual couples are more well adjusted than others". You'll almost always find a qualifier involved in any findings.
I'm not singling them out, I'm categorizing them and in that other category (of two) they are definitely not singled out.
Oh come on. You said: "And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt". You want to treat a couple as if they're not a couple because they're gay. Do you really not understand this? Couple == couple. Single == single. Couple != single. You absolutely and unarguably are applying different rules to couples based on sexual orientation.
Yes, well, technology does get to pose a lot of interesting questions. If I were to decide, I would solve it exactly the same way as it was solved in case of adoption. As for those people you mention, I'd say they are selfish for doing that and therefore unfit to be a good parent. I would never take their kids away from them (the damage is already done, taking them away would just scar them even more) but I would ban such procedures until we get more information concerning safety of the children.
Cop out. An infant isn't scarred by placing it with a different set of parents at birth, it doesn't know the difference. You're avoiding the question. If it's so damaging in your opinion, why wouldn't you "rescue" this child from it's "unfit" parents. Is it because you even you can see the massive flaws in your argument?
It's all about delivery. Too bad you fail to see such attempts to manipulate.
I still say you're being pedantic. What exactly is the difference between something that is illegal and something that you have no way of legally accomplishing?
Marriage is a contract, and standardized one at that. And in that contract stands it's made between a man and a woman. That aside, what exactly prevents people from creating a similar contract? Sure, you can not call it "marriage". I believe that gay people insist on that name because they believe they can hide behind the PR weight it carries. It's about inner feeling of acceptance in the society, not about a piece of paper that you sign to get stuff after other one dies.
Okay, so if we photocopy all the rules regarding marriage, and replace the word "marriage" with the word "buki-buki" you'd be okay with it? Is this really because you don't want someone to use a specific word for the same thing?
It's not there to "lure" people into anything, at that point "luring" is done:)
Hardly. There are millions of heterosexual couples in the United States that do not have or want children. Google around for "childfree", you'll find plenty of sites dedicated to arguing this exact point. Marriage and childbearing are having less and less to do with each other as time goes on.
I'm not changing the definition of marriage for certain people, not even trying to - marriage is pretty much a standardized contract between a man and a woman. So, remind me, who's trying to change the definition of marriage?
Gay marriage supporters aren't trying to change the definition of marriage either. They want to change who's qualified to enter into it. Whe
As I've said, the research I've read say otherwise (I'm unaware of like research that contradicts these results); I don't have a link right now, but you could try googling a bit. The research was conducted in Sweden and the conclusion is that gay marriages have 50% more chance of ending in divorce than heterosexual marriages.
Well that didn't take long. You know, when you're dealing with a study like this, you can't just look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. You have to look at why the numbers came out to be the way they did. That's what the authors of the study did, and here's what they had to say: The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married. Soooo, you're arguing that children will be negatively affected by the divorce rate, when the divorce rate actually seems attributable to the lack of children.
And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt (again, children need two parents, it's too much for a single parent), financially unstable (we don't want adopted kids to eat out of a garbage can, or steal because they don't have food...), drug abusers etc, etc.
How big of you. You're not going to single out homosexual couples, you're just going to treat them differently than heterosexual couples. You're equating two entirely different things. When you do an adoption, your life is examined by the authorities to determine stable homelife. You're letting them bypass this annoying step by just assuming that if the couple is gay they're clearly unstable. Also, lets take a look about your comment on single parent families. From answers.com on the topic: "One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States." So, guess all those kids were doomed and living by eating out of garbage cans, eh?
Let's keep in mind, it's not about homosexuals, it's about children. We want a safe and stable home for them. If someone is too impatient for research to be carefully done and is willing (and is, apparently, very aggressive about it) to gamble with children's fate then he/she/they is extremely selfish and because of that unfit to be a parent/parents.
No, it's not about the children. Being married does not confer an automatic right to adopt, and I rather doubt the majority of these couples would be trying to. Believe it or not, there are other reasons to get married than to have/adopt kids. They're largely the same reasons that childless hetrosexual couples marry.
Here's how I'd handle the situation; get in touch with institutes that usually do sociological and medical research in countries gay adoptions are allowed and fund them (separately, without each other knowing about it) to find out the impact on children, what's best and worst case scenarios, with a wide range of things to monitor. If the objectively attained results are favorable present them to the people and governments in non-aggressive way and let them vote about it. Sure, it takes a lot of time, but keep in mind - it's about the children.
What's with the focus on children. The topic is gay marriage, not adoption by gay couples. You're giving me plenty of reasons why you're against allowing gay couples to adopt, but again, marriage does not confer an automatic right to adopt children. I'm curious though, with
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only the ballot measures I know of were to change Marriage, not get rid of it.
I'm not sure I'd even say it changes marriage so much as expands on it. Marriage between two heterosexuals would be exactly the same as it is now, it would just open the practice to people who currently are being excluded.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic
on
Obama Launches Change.gov
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Some people just don't want to throw out something that has evolved over 10,000 years of human society.
I'm not seeing how expanding the practice == "throwing it out".
Others think that the purpose of marriage is to create a family and don't think that throwing that away is in the best interest of society.
I'm unaware of any procreative requirement for marriage. Those people don't generally have a problem with people getting married who are infertile due to age or illness, or who simply don't want children. I also fail to see how allowing homosexual couples to marry interferes with heterosexual couples carrying on as they always have.
That doesn't mean that people against gay marriage are homophobic, any more than it makes people who voted for Obama misogynists and ageists.
Since there's no rational argument to support those positions, it kind of does mean that. Some of them reacting to a "yuck" factor. They think that homosexual behavior is gross, and they think that they will somehow prevent it by stigmatizing it. Others believe that their chosen religion forbids it and that they should act to stop others from doing it, regardless of whether the homosexuals in question are part of their religious group or not. The weird part is, nobody is expecting them, the gay-marriage opponents, to actually engage in this behavior, they're fixating on something other people do that they don't ever have to take part in themselves.
There are valid reasons to be against gay marriage. Marriage has worked, and worked extremely well, for all of human civilization. Why do we want to get rid of it?
I strongly disagree. I've yet to hear any valid reasons to be against gay marriage. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. But why stick your nose into someone else's personal life where you're not welcome or wanted? Further, a nearly %50 divorce rate does not suggest that marriage works "extremely well". Really, a 50-50 success rate? You may as well say flipping a coin works "extremely well" as a method of predicting the future.
Did you not read your own post? You said: "Still not quite getting it. Community service is supposed to be a choice". I refuted that. Community service is not always a choice. By the way, I'm not talking about prisoners, I'm talking about people who drive to a particular location from home, at a specified time and perform a specified type of community service (typically for a misdemeanor).
It can be, sure. Based on school programs I've seen though, the kids aren't doing the same kind of community service that would be used for punishment though. There's a big difference between a judge telling you that you have to pick up trash and volunteering for a type of service that interests you that meets the graduation requirement. Community service doesn't mean we're going to send children out to dig drainage ditches by the roadside.
Passing math and english are also mandatory requirements for school. I don't recall ever having a cop show up to taze any of my friends who didn't do their homework, they just didn't graduate (or get promoted to the next grade). Believe it or not, plenty of schools require some type of community service as part of their curriculum, and they don't have the police shoot everyone who doesn't do their assignment.
Still not quite getting it. Community service is supposed to be a choice
You've apparently never seen the folks wearing orange jumpsuits cleaning up trash along the highways, or nearly any celebrity trial that ends in "$CELEBRITY was found guilty and sentenced to 200 hours of community service".
Slashdot Mirror
I've never understood why people who are mono-theists think their god has a gender at all. I mean, if there's only one of it, why would it be either male or female, it's not like it has anything to mate with...
and apparently there's a lot of trick photography involved in those movies. First of all, the blade is just plastic segments, and you kind of flick it to get the blade to extend. By the way, it doesn't cut worth a damn. It seems that the "light" part of the lightsaber is just a flashlight bulb embedded in the handle and shining through the tube. Pretty disappointing really.
Now the sound effects on the other hand are pretty damn cool. Granted, they're a little tinny compared to the movies, but I figure that's just due to the way they mixed the audio in post-prod.
If you can't tell, why would it matter? If it is truly impossible to know, how would that be different than not having a creator? You may as well worry that there is a creator and that he's going to cancel physics any minute now. What could you do about it anyway?
I'd say it's the same answer as the first question. If it's truely impossible to know, then it becomes irrelevant.
Well, at the very least it's a function of sentience, so if we're all there is, yep, it's a human construct. As for the meaningfulness of the question, I dunno. I posted a reply figuring maybe I'd get an answer to a question. What I got was a game of pile-on, where almost everyone wanted to have a go at me, even though most of them seem to have come up with a ton of points that I never mentioned, or are the direct opposite of what I said. Apparently it's meaningful to someone, oddly just not all that much to me personally.
Congratulations.
And why is that? Is it because there's absolutely no evidence that it exists? Science doesn't make any investigation into it for the same reason science doesn't research the mating rituals of pink unicorns, because there's no evidence of their existence either.
So if there was reason to believe that the universe does in fact have a purpose, in your opinion scientists would pass on investigating it? That's ludicrous. I'm sure there are scientists who would be more than happy to do research on who built the universe, if evidence were to present itself that such an entity exists.
Exactly, so why assume that there actually is one absent any evidence of that?
Not only can it not be tested, it can't even be found to exist. Under those conditions, it's entirely possible that stepping on a sidewalk crack really does cause your mother to break her back, after all, you can't actually prove it doesn't can you? The idea that there is an inherent and intentional purpose to the universe is completely unsubstantiated.
Science has never outright proven that humans never had psychic abilities that allowed them to fly, but the evidence to date certainly implies that this ability never existed. By your own argument though, perhaps we shouldn't make this assumption. As for the rest of what you said here, results can absolutely imply things not clearly present in data. For example, we detect extra-solar planets by observing stars and measuring how they're affected by gravitational fields. We can't actually see these planets, we're fairly certain of their existence though because their existence is implied by those readings. Or are astronomers misusing science by treating it as a "belief" or "discrete entity"?
Absolutely nothing. Why would it?
Assuming you even believe these "etheral matters" exist. Perhaps you missed the 30 or so times so far where I said you need something like a religion or similar type of philosophy to come up with purpose. "etheral matters" sounds like it would fit that bill. Of course, since there's no evidence that this whatever-it-is actually exists, it's not particularly unreasonable to not believe in it.
Cool, now all you have to do to make this analogy rock-solid is provide some kind of proof that the universe was "built" rather than simply being the result of some natural process with no guiding consciousness involved. I'm not going to wait for a reply that manages this though, since from the dawn of humanity nobody's managed it.
I've explained this over and over. The question I'd like an answer to is how can something that isn't intentionally created have inherent purpose and meaning. Those are functions of intent. If there's no entity creating an object for a particular purpose, I can't see a way for them to have them, so why don't you explain why you think they can? And once again, there is a difference between inherent purpose (a hammer was created for the purpose of hitting nails) and a purpose assigned after the fact by someone not involved with it's creation (the Universe serves the purpose of providing us with a place to exist so we can post on Slashdot). I've asked that question a couple of times now to people who seem to think it's possible, but so far nobody's tried to answer it.
Looking through your posts, you tend to mention Buddhism from time to time. Assuming that you're a Buddhist, and that you are taking your ideas of meaning and purpose from Buddhism, you have a value for n in my little pseudocode example above. In this case, n = Buddhism, and plugging that in allows you to complete the equation and get a purpose. Great, if that works for you I'm pleased to hear it. But as I told someone else, we don't all see the need for a complementary school of thought to accompany science, and the universe seems to work just fine without one. If you're looking for purpose and meaning, by all means use a religion or philosophy that provides one for you, but for those of us who prefer evidence to base our view of reality on, for whom science is the only option that makes sense, the idea that the universe has a special purpose as opposed to simply existing simply doesn't work.
The universe is the rock. We have no particular reason to believe that the universe was actually built by anyone, or at least no evidence of it. You mention in your other post about being a Simulationist. It's an interesting idea, but in some ways it's not particularly useful, as the sim may be programmed in a way that actively prevents us from recognizing it for what it is. I would lean towards the idea then that it becomes a moot point - if it's built in such a way that we can never discover that it was built in the first place, we're left in the position that we're already in, that we have to take it for what it is.
I'd say that's outside the point of the analogy. The point of using a hammer in the analogy is that it's definitely manufactured, and that there's no reason to believe that a random rock in the forest has been purposely built to be what it is. If you want the analogy to cover a manufactured universe, you'd have to use something of more ambiguous origin than a hammer, like maybe a flint-chip. That could be naturally formed, or it could be an arrow-head. I'm not even going to try to claim that the hammer vs. rock analogy can cover any conceivable argument, what analogy could?
Which is fine, but what you said was "Science doesn't imply the non-existence of God".
Sure there's that problem. Of course, the difference is, in science you can at some point say "I don't know", whereas in religion you can end up with either an answer that's just made up, or the answer of "We're not meant to know".
It does interest me, and it also provides an answer. To you, (if I'm understanding the meaning of simulationist), we're living in a sim, which very probably was created for a reason. In that case, the universe does have a purpose (although we aren't aware of the exact nature of it). To go back to the pseudo-code thing that I've been getting battered over, you'd get this:
n = "test simulation"
The Universe + n = Purpose
Or, something created a universe, for the purpose of, for the sake of argument let's say figuring out if life can be supported in a universe with our particular laws of physics.
That's perfectly valid for you to believe, doesn't bother me any, but there's no evidence to support it. So then we're back to me. I don't think it's likely that anything purposely created the universe, and therefore I have no value to plug into n. Based solely on science, I'm left with the idea that the only purpose there is in anything is what we give it ourselves. It doesn't have one otherwise (no inherent purpose). That is why I say science implies that the Universe and Humanity does not have a purpose, you need another set of beliefs to add that, and we don't all share that this additional set of beliefs is necessary.
No, and I didn't say that it does, although that can follow easily enough. The existence of a god does not necessarily mean that the universe or humanity has a purpose either. Maybe this god just likes cosmic radiation and we're a useless side effect. To come up with a "god" you have to make certain unnecessary assumptions, unnecessary because you can get the right answer without resorting to an outside influence. You don't need a god to explain gravity, or chemestry, or any other science.
Once again, IF you don't subscribe to a religion (or similar school of thought), AND you accept what science has to offer, THEN there is no reason to believe that the universe or humanity serves a special purpose, any more than you believe that the rock sitting in the middle of a forest serves a special purpose.
I think you're mixing two different types of purpose here. I'm talking about a purpose inherent in an object. A hammer was created to pound nails. This is why it was created. A person may feel their purpose in life is to help the poor, but that is a self-assigned purpose. There is no proof of an outside agent that caused that person's existence with the intention of helping the poor.
As for it being a "scientist's fault" that I feel this way, I'm unsure why I would blame anyone for it. It's not a scientists fault that gravity causes me to hit the ground if I fall. Why would it be a scientist's fault if I don't think that the Universe or Humanity serves some special purpose, based on the fact that we have no good evidence that the universe was actually designed as opposed to it simply occuring?
Again, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M GETTING AT. This is getting frustrating beyond belief. What I said, once again, is that unless you have some other belief to go along with science, there is no particular purpose that we know of to the existence of the universe, or humanity in general.
Take cosmology. If you don't have any sort of "complementary" belief, such as but not restricted to (bolded part for all the Slashlawyers who are picking things apart word by word) a religion of some type, a belief in extra-dimensional aliens that built the damn thing or a gut-feeling that only you can explain, then you can not say that the universe has an intended purpose. No, science does not seek to prove there is no god, but in the same way that we know that the sun is not pulled across the sky by Helios, we're coming to understand that the universe was not built just for us and quite probably was not created intentionally at all.
For science to say anything about what the universe "means" to us is to misunderstand science completely. For something to have meaning of it's own, to have an inherent purpose, implies that it was created with that purpose in mind. If you disagree with that, fine, but I'd love to know how you get a purpose without it. I say that there is no creator, therefore there is no inherent purpose. I can come to that conclusion because I don't belong to a religion or philosophical school of thought that can provide that extra step of naming a purpose for the universe or humanity. Science alone gives no evidence for a purpose, and that's just fine with me. A rock doesn't need a special purpose to be a rock, a shark doesn't need a special purpose to be a shark, and I don't need a special purpose to be human because that's what I am regardless of philosophical or religious commentary.
Fine, what definition of purpose would you like to use then, and without an outside agent, some kind of creator, how can an object inherently have one?
The fact that science chugs along without any need for an external agency to work is enough for me that I don't have to create one or borrow one from someone else. We don't need a god or similar agency to explain anything in science. If you believe in one of these external agents, it's entirely your choice, as opposed to "believing" in gravity, which is not really optional.
A lot of things are appealing, but I fail to see how that alone makes them relevant. I find the idea of winning the MegaMillions lotto appealing, but I'm not planning on basing my investment strategy on it.
Oh, so if we were going to take a little pseudo-code like line here, it might look something like this:
n = "external, purposeful creator's plan"
Cosmology + n = Purpose
Huh, if only I'd posted something like that earlier.
No, and neither does the universe, or humanity. Function does not depend on having a purpose, and I can't figure out how you got the idea from my post that I think it does.
I responded to a post that said "The world is full of people who somehow read the message "the universe serves no purpose" into cosmology and "people have no purpose" into evolutionary biology" by suggesting that science implies that there is no particular PURPOSE to existence, other than what we assign to it ourselves. That's it, that's all. In my pseudocode equation I said that without something filling the space of n, you can't get a purpose, I did not say that n is necessary for existence, just that it is necessary for purpose. Therefore, since there's no proof that anything actually fits the bill to be n's value, that it's not at all difficult to believe that there is no particular purpose to anything, other than that which we assign ourselves.
And this whole thread is beginning to remind me of "A Fish Called Wanda"
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
I didn't actually say that science says we have no purpose. I said that it implies it, and that's what I believe. As far as it being a narrow definition of purpose, give me your definition. If you're thinking about it differently, then we're having two entirely different conversations.
The comment I replied to is "The world is full of people who somehow read the message "the universe serves no purpose" into cosmology and "people have no purpose" into evolutionary biology". I'm suggesting that it's not so hard to come away from the sciences with the idea that there is no grand overarching purpose for our existence. There's no actual evidence for any specific purpose to existence. It's not at all unreasonable to conclude that we're just here, and that's all there is to it.
That's not a suitable analogy at all. A hammer has an intended purpose, which is assigned by, as I mentioned above, a "creating, intelligent entity". That purpose is to pound nails. What the hammer is made of is irrelevant. Now a rock on the other hand might be a better analogy. The rock has no specific purpose, no entity formed it for a particular reason, it just is. You can use it to pound nails, but at that point you're assigning a purpose to it.
In much the same way, the Universe has no particular purpose, it just is. Living in it is the purpose that we assign to it, but if life didn't form here, or ceased to exist here, the universe would exist anyway.
I don't think it's that hard to follow. Cosmology alone does not assign any "purpose" to the universe. It simply is, and cosmology studies it's features.. There's no evidence that it exists for a specific reason. Example: A religion may say the universe exists so that we can inhabit it, so that we can praise it's creator. Following that, the universe has a purpose, to sustain this particular god's people. So, if you take cosmology (the universe exists and here are it's features), add religion (the n in my little pseudocode thingie) you get it's purpose (sustaining $DEITY's creations). If you don't ascribe to something vaguely like this, then the universe doesn't really serve an intended purpose. It's just here, and we get to live in it.
I mean exactly what I said. Biology and cosmology don't require a god or other outside force to work. As a matter of fact, I'd say that the more we learn in each field makes most religions less likely, not more. So, no, it's not a metaphor.
I'm suggesting exactly the opposite. Science at this point suggests that there is no grand purpose to much of anything. You can make up a religion to try to instill a purpose into things if it makes you feel better, but objectively speaking there is no "purpose", no reason, no special meaning to existence. It's just an interesting collection of phenomena that we happen to be experiencing.
But if you don't believe in some form of "god", isn't that message implied? The "purpose" spoken of in the context of religion is determined by an outside, or creating, intelligent entity. Cosmology and evolutionary biology don't need any such entity, so any "purpose" would be entirely of our own creation, meaning, there's no pre-determined purpose to the universe or humanity (that we know of), there's only the purpose that we decide to apply ourselves.
My point is, if you think of this as a kind of pseudocode equation, with "purpose" as the product, then it'd look something like this:
Cosmology + n = Purpose
or
Humanity + n = Purpose
Now, maybe n is some type of god, or a sentient universe or something else, but without it, you don't get a value for Purpose. So far, science can't provide a value for n, and I haven't heard any likely candidates that I'd be willing to get behind.
I wanted to come up with an insightful reply that might sway you to my way of thinking, but you know, if you lack the basic humanity to know the difference between someone not wanting to die from lack of medical care and someone wanting a nice car or a McMansion, I don't think I can even begin to sway your opinion.
Look, I'm dropping this for a few reasons:
1: It's just going on too damn long. You have your view, I have mine, and they're not going to change.
2: I'm arguing specifically about same-sex marriage in the U.S., and using historical and cultural contexts that you may not see parallels to since you are not an American. Issues like mixed-race marriage are directly applicable because nearly all the arguments being used here are variations of those used many years ago when fighting against mixed-race marriage.
3: Your comments about the legal and political status of same sex marriage show that you don't really understand the relationship between the federal government, the governments of the states, and the citizens. This isn't a dig at you, why should you understand it? Most Americans don't have much of a grasp of political systems in Europe. My point here is that I'm at a loss as to how I can tie all these things together to make a decent response.
4: The Rammstein link was just stupid. If same sex marriage becomes the law of the land in the U.S., it will probably be after large portions of Europe already have it considering that the U.S. is generally more conservative socially, not less. Really, how many times have we heard on Slashdot alone that the American left looks like a moderate right-wing to most European eyes.
Why homosexuals though? Do we need to research interracial couples before we allow them to adopt? How about interfaith couples? Midgets? Mimes? You're specifically worried about one group, and honestly, it really does say far more about you than it does the actual issue. There is no good reason to require this "research". The most likely difficulties that a child would encounter are socially induced, and quite frankly, disallowing adoption for that reason opens the argument to disallowing adoption to mixed-race couples in, for instance, in some parts of the American south.
Not the point. You said you weren't treating the two groups differently, and I pointed out that you absolutely are. Perhaps this is a language issue (now that I know English isn't your first), but the fact remains that you're treating them differently, which is discrimination, plain and simple.
No. Currently gay marriage is not legal in the vast majority of the United States. Emotion doesn't play into this part of it. The law doesn't allow you to do it, and therefore proponents want it legalized. Further, in certain places here the law has been changed to define marriage as one man and one woman, for the express reason of excluding homosexuals.
Discrimination is unacceptable. Separate but equal is unacceptable. Perhaps in your country the context is different, but in the United States rights belong to the people, not the State unless otherwise specified. There is no over-riding state interest in blocking homosexuals from marrying, therefore it should not be involved.
I don't understand what you're saying here. The folks from the childfree "movement" are getting exactly what they want, they don't want children and they don't want to be bothered by those who do. Seems pretty clear to me.
Really? I'll let you pass on the baseball part, but I see you skipped over the topic of inter-racial marriage. Did marriage change when these people were allowed to marry? If not, why do you feel there's a major difference here?
Well now this is convenient to your point, since in fields such as psychology and sociology "it may be" is pretty much as good as it gets. No researcher in their right mind is going to try to apply a concrete finding in studies of human behaviour since there's really no way to prove anything without room for error. Case in point, you won't find any reliable research that says "Children of heterosexual couples are more well adjusted than others". You'll almost always find a qualifier involved in any findings.
Oh come on. You said: "And gays should not be singled out, I agree. They should join a group of singles who also shouldn't be able to adopt". You want to treat a couple as if they're not a couple because they're gay. Do you really not understand this? Couple == couple. Single == single. Couple != single. You absolutely and unarguably are applying different rules to couples based on sexual orientation.
Cop out. An infant isn't scarred by placing it with a different set of parents at birth, it doesn't know the difference. You're avoiding the question. If it's so damaging in your opinion, why wouldn't you "rescue" this child from it's "unfit" parents. Is it because you even you can see the massive flaws in your argument?
I still say you're being pedantic. What exactly is the difference between something that is illegal and something that you have no way of legally accomplishing?
Okay, so if we photocopy all the rules regarding marriage, and replace the word "marriage" with the word "buki-buki" you'd be okay with it? Is this really because you don't want someone to use a specific word for the same thing?
Hardly. There are millions of heterosexual couples in the United States that do not have or want children. Google around for "childfree", you'll find plenty of sites dedicated to arguing this exact point. Marriage and childbearing are having less and less to do with each other as time goes on.
Gay marriage supporters aren't trying to change the definition of marriage either. They want to change who's qualified to enter into it. Whe
Well that didn't take long. You know, when you're dealing with a study like this, you can't just look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. You have to look at why the numbers came out to be the way they did. That's what the authors of the study did, and here's what they had to say: The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married. Soooo, you're arguing that children will be negatively affected by the divorce rate, when the divorce rate actually seems attributable to the lack of children.
How big of you. You're not going to single out homosexual couples, you're just going to treat them differently than heterosexual couples. You're equating two entirely different things. When you do an adoption, your life is examined by the authorities to determine stable homelife. You're letting them bypass this annoying step by just assuming that if the couple is gay they're clearly unstable. Also, lets take a look about your comment on single parent families. From answers.com on the topic: "One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States." So, guess all those kids were doomed and living by eating out of garbage cans, eh?
No, it's not about the children. Being married does not confer an automatic right to adopt, and I rather doubt the majority of these couples would be trying to. Believe it or not, there are other reasons to get married than to have/adopt kids. They're largely the same reasons that childless hetrosexual couples marry.
What's with the focus on children. The topic is gay marriage, not adoption by gay couples. You're giving me plenty of reasons why you're against allowing gay couples to adopt, but again, marriage does not confer an automatic right to adopt children. I'm curious though, with
I'm not sure I'd even say it changes marriage so much as expands on it. Marriage between two heterosexuals would be exactly the same as it is now, it would just open the practice to people who currently are being excluded.
I'm not seeing how expanding the practice == "throwing it out".
I'm unaware of any procreative requirement for marriage. Those people don't generally have a problem with people getting married who are infertile due to age or illness, or who simply don't want children. I also fail to see how allowing homosexual couples to marry interferes with heterosexual couples carrying on as they always have.
Since there's no rational argument to support those positions, it kind of does mean that. Some of them reacting to a "yuck" factor. They think that homosexual behavior is gross, and they think that they will somehow prevent it by stigmatizing it. Others believe that their chosen religion forbids it and that they should act to stop others from doing it, regardless of whether the homosexuals in question are part of their religious group or not. The weird part is, nobody is expecting them, the gay-marriage opponents, to actually engage in this behavior, they're fixating on something other people do that they don't ever have to take part in themselves.
I strongly disagree. I've yet to hear any valid reasons to be against gay marriage. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. But why stick your nose into someone else's personal life where you're not welcome or wanted?
Further, a nearly %50 divorce rate does not suggest that marriage works "extremely well". Really, a 50-50 success rate? You may as well say flipping a coin works "extremely well" as a method of predicting the future.
Did you not read your own post? You said: "Still not quite getting it. Community service is supposed to be a choice". I refuted that. Community service is not always a choice. By the way, I'm not talking about prisoners, I'm talking about people who drive to a particular location from home, at a specified time and perform a specified type of community service (typically for a misdemeanor).
It can be, sure. Based on school programs I've seen though, the kids aren't doing the same kind of community service that would be used for punishment though. There's a big difference between a judge telling you that you have to pick up trash and volunteering for a type of service that interests you that meets the graduation requirement. Community service doesn't mean we're going to send children out to dig drainage ditches by the roadside.
Passing math and english are also mandatory requirements for school. I don't recall ever having a cop show up to taze any of my friends who didn't do their homework, they just didn't graduate (or get promoted to the next grade). Believe it or not, plenty of schools require some type of community service as part of their curriculum, and they don't have the police shoot everyone who doesn't do their assignment.
You've apparently never seen the folks wearing orange jumpsuits cleaning up trash along the highways, or nearly any celebrity trial that ends in "$CELEBRITY was found guilty and sentenced to 200 hours of community service".